AgroPages-US GMO labeling law debate continues-Agricultural news

Related News

Work continues on Capitol Hill to develop a national labeling scheme for foods that have ingredients sourced from genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

On June 18, the U.S. House Energy & Commerce Committee heard testimony from experts about the safety of foods derived from genetically modified (GM) crops and the need for a national review and labeling standards for such products.

A patchwork of state labeling schemes is feared to be impractical and unworkable. Such a system would create confusion among consumers and result in higher prices and fewer options, said Joseph Pitts, chairman of the House subcommittee on health.

Reps. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) and G.K. Butterfield (D., N.C.) have introduced H.R. 1599, the Safe & Accurate Food Labeling Act, and circulated updated legislative language to include ongoing stakeholder suggestions for the labeling standard.

The Safe & Accurate Food Labeling Act is designed to ensure that food labeling in the U.S. is consistent across state lines and based on sound science. The bill increases coordination between the Food & Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which supporters say guarantees that the nation's foremost experts on food and agricultural safety will be in charge of labeling decisions.

Under the current law, FDA has estimated a "voluntary consultation" process whereby developers of GM seeds can provide FDA with safety data.

When the FDA consultation process is completed for a GM crop, FDA responds to the seed developer in a letter stating that FDA has "no further questions" about the developer's determination that the GM crop is substantially equivalent to its conventional counterpart. FDA, however, never provides its own opinion or conclusion about the safety of the crop.

In testimony, Greg Jaffe, biotechnology project director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said FDA should determine the safety of all GM crops before foods from those crops enter the food supply. He said H.R. 1599 takes only a small step toward what should be the proper role for FDA in ensuring the safety of biotech crops and the foods made from them.

Val Giddings, senior fellow at the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, advised against changing the nature of FDA within the safety process by mandating the agency's input in the discussions.

Giddings said biotech plants already go through one of the most scrutinized approval processes by USDA, and that "review process has worked and is working well." He added that FDA currently has the authority to ensure that all food entering the market is safe.

Truthful labeling

Supporters say H.R. 1599 would establish a transparent, consistent GMO-free certification program, bringing clarity to those who choose to purchase GMO-free foods.

Jaffe said his organization has been a strong proponent of GMO labeling but insists that it must be "truthful, neutral and non-misleading."

He added that only the most important information — either nutritionally or from a food safety standpoint — should be mandated by the government. He cited a Rutgers study that found that when consumers were asked to choose from a list of what they would like to see added to food labels, only 7% indicated GMO content.

Rep. Ken Schrader (D., Ore.) said he supports the bill because it provides clarity on terms such as "natural" and "non-GMO" and added that it's important for people to know the process FDA and USDA use to classify something as non-GMO, just as USDA does with organic certification.

Growing support

The House bill currently has 60 co-sponsors, including 12 Democrats.

After the hearing, Chuck Conner, president and chief executive officer of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC), said there is "tremendous momentum building behind H.R. 1599."

John Linder, trade policy and biotechnology action team chair for the National Corn Growers Assn., said in this era of limited bipartisan agreement, the fact that support for this bill continues to grow is unique.

"We believe this type of support indicates that this commonsense, consumer-friendly legislation can still advance through the legislative process," Linder said. "From farmers to food manufacturers, 400-plus organizations from all 50 states representing every part of the food value chain have publicly voiced ardent support for this bill. The time to move forward — for the sake of farmers and consumers alike — is now."

The House agriculture subcommittee on biotechnology plans to hold a hearing June 25 to review the food labeling legislation.

Subcommittee chairman Rodney Davis (R., Ill.) and 29 colleagues on the House Agriculture Committee wrote a letter endorsing the new discussion draft of the bill.

The agriculture and energy and commerce committees have each held separate hearings on the GMO labeling bill and have shown a level of cooperation that will be "essential to producers as the bill moves forward," NCFC board chairman and GROWMARK president John Reifsteck said.